I was on a prescribed stimulant for 6 months. It was nice for work, but it ended up with too many side effects that kind of mess with ones head. It tends to "simplify" complex decision making processes and not just for code but for life decisions.
There's a fine line, as with alcohol. A single cup of tea might feel refreshing. A monster energy drink is going to feel like a fight or flight response. Some people are also more sensitive than others and some are addicted more really than others.
I hypothesize that most of the stimulant use is actually due to poor sleep hygiene and jacked circadian rhythms, because of electricity and lighting on-demand.
I do find the economics / work narrative relatively unconvincing. For one workload in the developed world has fallen by about 40-50% over the last 100 years. Consuming stimulants is as popular among call it the 'lazy bum class' (no offense, I grew up in a deadbeat town) as it is among strivers. Coffee goes back five thousand years, Nicotine as far as recorded history, that is 10k+ years.
They've always had recreational or even ritual use, and the health fads against stimulants and cleansing crazes usually come from the work-obsessed than anyone else. So I don't think that we run on stimulants, I'm pretty sure we'd do them regardless.
>> There’s a generational split in those numbers; among the under-35 crowd, it’s 60 percent. The older demographic still prefers coffee, and 66 percent of Americans drink that every day, too.
But, but! Isn't coffee consumption supposed to provide health benefits too? Like "reduced risks of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, liver conditions, and overall mortality".
Seems odd to lump coffee into the same bucket with energy drinks.
> brutal labor conditions in Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Indonesia, where more and more workers are turning to amphetamines to “work without stopping.”
...
> All of this adds up to one thing: a form of hyper-capitalist imperialism
Does this just not happen, then, in communist Vietnam or Laos?
reply